Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Yes , but we were talking about how science and academic history deal with claims of the supernatural and not about science in general.
Supernatural claims in history are supposed to be dealt with in a neutral way but are not and international academic bodies don't seem to be able to see that.

From my understanding they are generally ignored. That appears to be the most reasonable way to deal with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? What sort? Do you not realize that there are different sorts of sedimentary strata that were deposited in different sorts of environments? The sedimentary strata that we find, except for very small number of exceptions do not appear to be flood deposits.


Really? How did that happen in a year without melting the crust? Don't bother, you will not find an answer. Even AiG has no answer to the heat problem.


Again why? How much? You cannot just wave your hands, you need models and evidence. And are we talking Coca Cola? Pepsi? RC Cola? The soda drinking public needs to know.


Definitely not. At least not as we find them. You do not know the nature of the fossils that can be found on tops of mountains and why they refute the flod.


No, once again you want to cook Noah and company and burn the ark to a crisp. The heat problem tells us that you are wrong.

No, you are misinterpreting what we do see because you have been lied to by professional liars.

Would you like to know what we would really see?

What impact do you think climate change will have on the cola fields? Will there be a mass release of CO2 as the cola goes flat?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes religions disagree.

Churches disagree even more sometimes violently.

An alternative view is based on faith in the truth of the scriptures and not in the opinions of people, whether they are endorsed universally or not.

This alternative view is no different from the position of other churches and religions that believe in the truth of their scriptures. Opinions? calling other beliefs an opinion is an insult, where the subjective assumptions are the same on both sides of the fence and are as much an opinion as the other.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes , but we were talking about how science and academic history deal with claims of the supernatural and not about science in general.
Supernatural claims in history are supposed to be dealt with in a neutral way but are not and international academic bodies don't seem to be able to see that.

The sciences and academic history are indeed neutral in that they cannot and will not attempt to demonstrate whether supernatural events are true or not. What you proposed is that historians should accept ancient text references to supernatural events should be accepted as true until proven false. This is not a neutral position.

Yes, historians do not deal with science directly except the scientific methods used in dating and the archaeological methods of testing archaeological materials and the associated rocks.

Actually, in West Virginia, I worked with archaeologists for geological evaluation of some of their archaeological sites.

 

[shunyadragon]

What impact do you think climate change will have on the cola fields? Will there be a mass release of CO2 as the cola goes flat?

Fizzy rocks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fizzy rocks?

Close but no cigar:

 

[Brian2]

From my understanding they are generally ignored. That appears to be the most reasonable way to deal with them.

When it comes to prophecies, ignoring the prophecies means presuming that they have been written after the fact.
This is not neutral.
You would think that academic societies could see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it comes to prophecies, ignoring the prophecies means presuming that they have been written after the fact.
This is not neutral.
You would think that academic societies could see that.

No, some prophecies in the Bible clearly fail. The Tyre prophecy for example. Others show that they were written after the fact when one analyzes them. You should read up on how they do that. Bias is not involved. In fact it is those that insist that the prophecies are accurate that have bias.

And of course one of the worst failed prophecies is that of Jesus claiming that he would come back while at least some of the disciples were still alive.

 

[Brian2]

Churches disagree even more sometimes violently.

I thought violence because of different doctrinal positions in Christian Churches was a thing of the past, but I suppose it might still happen. Do you have any details or examples of that?

This alternative view is no different from the position of other churches and religions that believe in the truth of their scriptures. Opinions? calling other beliefs an opinion is an insult, where the subjective assumptions are the same on both sides of the fence and are as much an opinion as the other.

I was talking about the opinions of people on the academic standards for supernatural claims.
I suppose you could call a faith based view "a personal preference with a religious agenda", but it has also to do with what is actually a neutral position to hold and what is not.
With other supernatural claims, ignoring them might work and be neutral, but with prophecies, ignoring them includes saying that they were written after the fact it seems, and that is a presumption about the date of writing of the prophecies and has an impact on what is said about the authenticity of the scriptures.

 

[Brian2]

The sciences and academic history are indeed neutral in that they cannot and will not attempt to demonstrate whether supernatural events are true or not. What you proposed is that historians should accept ancient text references to supernatural events should be accepted as true until proven false. This is not a neutral position.

It is certainly not neutral to presume prophecy was written after the fact, presume it is a lie.
If the scriptures can be dated without that presumption then that is the neutral way to do it.
If the scriptures can be dated without reference to the prophecies at all, that is even better.
The gospels can be dated without reference to the Temple destruction prophecy.
Once the prophecy is considered in the dating process, it loses it's neutrality. And that is exactly what happens when historians, in trying to date the writing of a document, presume the prophecies are lies.
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people cannot see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is certainly not neutral to presume prophecy was written after the fact, presume it is a lie.
If the scriptures can be dated without that presumption then that is the neutral way to do it.

Why do you think that it is a presumption? If you looked into why they think that you would see that it was not a matter of presumption.

 

[Brian2]

Others show that they were written after the fact when one analyzes them. You should read up on how they do that. Bias is not involved. In fact it is those that insist that the prophecies are accurate that have bias.

How do prophecies in the Bible show that they were written after the fact?
Are they shown to be written after the fact because they are spot on in what they claim?
They would not be written after the fact if they were mistaken in what they said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes , but we were talking about how science and academic history deal with claims of the supernatural and not about science in general.

"there's no verifiable evidence" leading into "claim rejected and ignored".

As it should be.

Supernatural claims in history are supposed to be dealt with in a neutral way

Every claim, supernatural (whatever that means) or otherwise, gets the exact same treatment.
Is there verifiable evidence or are the verifiable / testable predictions? If the answer is "no", then we are already done.

but are not and international academic bodies don't seem to be able to see that.

They are unverifiable claims of magic. What do you expect academics to do with such claims aside from rejecting and ignoring them?
What do you propose they do with them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do prophecies in the Bible show that they were written after the fact?
Are they shown to be written after the fact because they are spot on in what they claim?
They would not be written after the fact if they were mistaken in what they said.

I gave you two examples of terribly failed prophecies. So they are clearly not all "spot on". Why don't you do a little homework?

Let's take Daniel as an example.

"Dating[edit]
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[49]

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[50]"

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please note, the Jews themselves knew it was no a book of prophecy. The "canon of the prophets" was closed around 200 BCE and Daniel was not in it. It was as the article shows written after that date. The Jews would have known when it was written.

 

[1213]

That is not true at all. Here is how science works. One makes observations. One tries to think of an explanation. One makes that explanation in the form of a testable model. ...

But, the explanation is not the same as evidence. Explanation can be wrong and rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the evidence.

 

[1213]

Why? What sort? Do you not realize that there are different sorts of sedimentary strata that were deposited in different sorts of environments? The sedimentary strata that we find, except for very small number of exceptions do not appear to be flood deposits.

Biblical flood would have caused many different layers, because it carried lot of different stuff and there is no reason to assume the original continent was homogeneous.

Really? How did that happen in a year without melting the crust? Don't bother, you will not find an answer. Even AiG has no answer to the heat problem.

The sediments were softer, because of the flood water. And the flood water also cooled things. And the possible heating cased water vapor and the heavy rain for 40 days.

Again why? How much? You cannot just wave your hands, you need models and evidence. And are we talking Coca Cola? Pepsi? RC Cola? The soda drinking public needs to know.

Sorry, cola fields are secret, hold by Coca cola company, I meant coal.

All living things died from the surface of dry land. Much of it was mixed into the sediments and that organic material then later became oil, gas and coal.

 

[1213]

...Natural processes over millions of years are necessary for how the earth's rocks and eroded surface exist today.

Sorry, I don't believe that. And I think it goes against everything that can actually be observed in nature, like for example erosion.

I am a Geologist with over fifty years of field experience. One of my specialties is geomorphology the study of how landforms and rocks form. We can actually see the natural processes that formed the ancient rocks of the world happening today all over the world.

Really, difficult to believe that. How can we see something that allegedly takes millions of years?

 

[1213]

We have a fossil record that stretches out about 3.7 billion years.
Are you saying your flood lasted for 3.7 billion years?

No. I say there is no intelligent reason to believe in 3.7 billion years.

 

[1213]

Second, the noah flood predicts global geological formations dated to the same period + a universal genetic bottleneck in all species also dated to the same period.

If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it would not cause similar formations uniformly around the planet. For example in some areas it would expose "older" structures of the planet and in some areas it would cover them, which would make it look like there is different times and events.

And the bottleneck, I think nature looks exactly what it would be after the flood. What do you think the bottleneck should look like?

 

[1213]

If evolution occured and species share ancestry, then the collective DNA of all living things should be arranged in a nested hierarchy. Aka, a family tree.
A common root from which all species branch out in a hierarchical fashion.

That could as well be the result of creation. If the data is correct, it is nice collection, but what it means is just a subjective opinion, not scientific evidence for evolution.